From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:07:09 +1100
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > However I'm not quite sure yet how to teach lockdep about this. The
> > proposed patch will shut it up though.
>
> As a rule I think we should neve
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> However I'm not quite sure yet how to teach lockdep about this. The
> proposed patch will shut it up though.
As a rule I think we should never make semantic changes to shut up
lockdep.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.op
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 18:49 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > =
> > [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.19-rc6 #4
> > ---
On 29-11-2006 08:49, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> =
>> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.19-rc6 #4
>> -
>> nc/1854 just
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> =
> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> 2.6.19-rc6 #4
> -
> nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
> (af_callback_k
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.19-rc6 #4
-
nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
(af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}, at: []
sock_def_error_re
